Companies that store consumer data have a real PR conundrum on their hands when confronted with government demands for that data. Following the criticism of Google for neutering its search engine to appease China’s lack of a First Amendment, the search monopoly regained its right to use its “Don’t Be Evil” motto by declining the U.S. government’s request to breech its users’ search habits.

Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation, no stranger to this weblog, filed a lawsuit against the once venerable and newly aspirant AT&T for having caved on this very issue. The L.A. Times broke the story during Christmas week when you and I and most Americans were not paying much attention.

With half the country not seeming to mind the growing 1984 scenario (guess which half?), the choice to comply or fight is ever more complicated. It will be interesting to watch how AT&T balances its customers’ privacy and the government’s alleged need to know. Thus far, no comment:

“AT&T said Tuesday that it needed to review the complaint before it could respond. But AT&T spokesman Dave Pacholczyk told CNET News.com last week in response to a query about NSA cooperation: “We don’t comment on matters of national security.” 

This story is far from over.

PR public relations
privacy politics

A running theme in this blog revolves around the growing tension between top-down control of news by a company or institution and the forces that advocate a more democratic means of interacting with one’s constituencies.

Citizen journalist evangelist Dan Gillmor, writing in the current issue of PR Week, takes Apple’s communications department to task for its heavy-handed PR approach to the recent Macworld Conference. In his column, titled “Apple’s control of information is a disservice to journalism,” Mr Gillmor opines:

“The “Big Announcement” strikes me as an increasingly irrelevant tactic. There are times when it’s still a sensible idea, such as when a company is telling the world about something truly game-changing… By trying (and largely succeeding) to control every iota of information, Apple ultimately does itself no favors.” 

So when is it “sensible” (to use Mr. Gillmor’s term) to mount a “big,” controlled approach? Is there room in the PR person’s toolbox for both a participatory, grassroots mode and the tried-and-true top-down strategy for making news or managing the message? What does the hybrid look like? Let me first finish Scoble and Israel’s Naked Conversations and I’ll hopefully have more on this vexing PR issue.

PR public relations
media Apple citizen journalism news

No. I’m not obsessed with the machinations of the Bush Administration’s communications office. After all, it provides ample copy for this weblog. The latest command and control scenario arrived today in a piece by Editor & Publisher NY-based reporter Joe Strupp. It concerns the excessive use of hand-out photos versus images taken by actual photojournalists.

Apparently, in eight years the Clinton Administration issued about 100 canned photos to the media. In just five years, the Bush Administration already has provided more than 500 staged photos. Susan Walsh, an AP staff photographer and head of the White House News Photographers Association had this to say:

“They average about two per week. The White House staff photographer’s role is to document the president. They have now crossed the line and become public relations photographers for the administration.” 

In an age where pixels can drive public perception, it’s understandable why the White House Communications Office insists on micromanaging which images merit public release, and which ones don’t. (BTW, Scott McClellan did not return Mr. Strupp’s call seeking comment.)

I guess the brave new world of PR transparency and “naked conversations” has yet to penetrate the Beltway. Why should it when command and control is so effective for advancing agendas?

PR journalism
politics photography